05-08-2015, 04:25 PM
Quote: Defines "desertification" as the degradation of productive land into increasingly arid, dry, and unusable terrain;[/quote]
I would add a phrase or two in her that would specifically deal with the loss of arable land instead of simply productive land. Arable indicates productivity through agriculture, where productive could include other uses. I would also extrapolate on the ?how? of desertification, focusing on topsoil loss and loss of vegetation, as well. What really causes the significant and long-term damage to soils after desertification is the scouring of topsoil, which is almost impossible to quickly replace once it is gone.
Quote: 2. Requires member nations affected by desertification to make all efforts practical and necessary to adopt integrated sustainable land and water management techniques so as to mitigate the effects of drought and prevent desertification; such techniques shall include, but shall not be limited to, transhumance, regular crop rotation, rainwater capture, and sustainable irrigation such as surge irrigation;[/quote]
I would leave out the reference to surge irrigation. While effective at water conservation, it isn?t necessary to list, and isn?t always the best alternative in certain situations. In fact, I?d just list transhumance, crop rotation, and sustainable irrigation practices, since rainwater capture, be it through rainbarrels or geomorphic design, is part and parcel. It also may not be entirely necessary depending on the presence of aquifers or other groundwater stores.
Quote: 3. Mandates that, where possible, member nation urge farmers to practice both pastoral and crop-based land use so as to reduce pressure on the land;[/quote]
What kind of pressures are we reducing? Not that I can?t tell, but some readers may not. Is the demand on the vegetation or the hydrology? Or is the demand on the land through soil and nutrient loss? If it is all of those, perhaps quantify ?pressure? with ?environmental?. Since it's an action clause, people will likely want a little clarification. This way, you can indicate that the land can still be used in such a manner as to be productive, but with stronger focus on the land?s requirements rather than production quota.
Quote: 5. Authorizes the WACSLD to liaise with the International Meteorological Organization in order to provide member nations and other regions affected by desertification with adequate warning prior to droughts and intensive rainfall, so as to allow them to make appropriate preparations;[/quote]
I?d also have the WACSLD liaise with WASP on the environmental impacts of certain anti-desertification methods. The thought here is that, in the real world, prevention of topsoil loss and erosion is often combatted by planting a quick-growing grass to cover an exposed area and root it down. Generally, this is an annual grass that will die back and be easily succeeded, but not always. Kudzu, for example, was one such mistake?if it?s popular in Real Life, it will be in NS, so it stands to reason that allowing WASP a chance to poke their heads in when dealing with intentional trans-boundary species introduction will be a good idea.
That?s just the first of potentially many duties that WASP could serve, as it?s a game equivalent of a similar facet of my job. Obviously, space is at a premium, so an in-depth explanation is probably overkill, but an inclusion is always helpful.
Quote: 6. Promotes the diversification of livelihoods in member nations and regions affected by desertification so as to reduce to pressure on the land and to mitigate the affects of droughts;[/quote]
A feel-good clause, but in my experience, first and second hand, people are often unwilling to change what historically works for them, so I see the clause as mostly feel-good fluff that will likely not have any real effect. It seems to me that your next clause effectively covers this topic while providing more actual legislative substance. If you do decide to keep it, I think the word ?effects? is more appropriate than ?affects?.
All in all, it isn?t bad at all. It?s topical and broad enough that it narrowly avoids the issue of micromanaging while still addressing the issue comprehensively. I don?t think that splitting this into multiple resolutions will at all help this particular topic. I?ll admit, from a scientific point of view, it is a little oversimplified, but I know that it is necessary for WA resolutions, given the character count and the target audience.
I would add a phrase or two in her that would specifically deal with the loss of arable land instead of simply productive land. Arable indicates productivity through agriculture, where productive could include other uses. I would also extrapolate on the ?how? of desertification, focusing on topsoil loss and loss of vegetation, as well. What really causes the significant and long-term damage to soils after desertification is the scouring of topsoil, which is almost impossible to quickly replace once it is gone.
Quote: 2. Requires member nations affected by desertification to make all efforts practical and necessary to adopt integrated sustainable land and water management techniques so as to mitigate the effects of drought and prevent desertification; such techniques shall include, but shall not be limited to, transhumance, regular crop rotation, rainwater capture, and sustainable irrigation such as surge irrigation;[/quote]
I would leave out the reference to surge irrigation. While effective at water conservation, it isn?t necessary to list, and isn?t always the best alternative in certain situations. In fact, I?d just list transhumance, crop rotation, and sustainable irrigation practices, since rainwater capture, be it through rainbarrels or geomorphic design, is part and parcel. It also may not be entirely necessary depending on the presence of aquifers or other groundwater stores.
Quote: 3. Mandates that, where possible, member nation urge farmers to practice both pastoral and crop-based land use so as to reduce pressure on the land;[/quote]
What kind of pressures are we reducing? Not that I can?t tell, but some readers may not. Is the demand on the vegetation or the hydrology? Or is the demand on the land through soil and nutrient loss? If it is all of those, perhaps quantify ?pressure? with ?environmental?. Since it's an action clause, people will likely want a little clarification. This way, you can indicate that the land can still be used in such a manner as to be productive, but with stronger focus on the land?s requirements rather than production quota.
Quote: 5. Authorizes the WACSLD to liaise with the International Meteorological Organization in order to provide member nations and other regions affected by desertification with adequate warning prior to droughts and intensive rainfall, so as to allow them to make appropriate preparations;[/quote]
I?d also have the WACSLD liaise with WASP on the environmental impacts of certain anti-desertification methods. The thought here is that, in the real world, prevention of topsoil loss and erosion is often combatted by planting a quick-growing grass to cover an exposed area and root it down. Generally, this is an annual grass that will die back and be easily succeeded, but not always. Kudzu, for example, was one such mistake?if it?s popular in Real Life, it will be in NS, so it stands to reason that allowing WASP a chance to poke their heads in when dealing with intentional trans-boundary species introduction will be a good idea.
That?s just the first of potentially many duties that WASP could serve, as it?s a game equivalent of a similar facet of my job. Obviously, space is at a premium, so an in-depth explanation is probably overkill, but an inclusion is always helpful.
Quote: 6. Promotes the diversification of livelihoods in member nations and regions affected by desertification so as to reduce to pressure on the land and to mitigate the affects of droughts;[/quote]
A feel-good clause, but in my experience, first and second hand, people are often unwilling to change what historically works for them, so I see the clause as mostly feel-good fluff that will likely not have any real effect. It seems to me that your next clause effectively covers this topic while providing more actual legislative substance. If you do decide to keep it, I think the word ?effects? is more appropriate than ?affects?.
All in all, it isn?t bad at all. It?s topical and broad enough that it narrowly avoids the issue of micromanaging while still addressing the issue comprehensively. I don?t think that splitting this into multiple resolutions will at all help this particular topic. I?ll admit, from a scientific point of view, it is a little oversimplified, but I know that it is necessary for WA resolutions, given the character count and the target audience.